I can say even more: hosters can really use ONLY ONE IPv4 public address
for anything they need. This is not a hoster company problem in general.
So they do use IPv4 as you say.
The problem is IPv6 Internet is still useless. If it will be when IPv4
runs out, the world will NOT be moved to IPv6, but will use NATs, trade
the rest of IPv4 blocks and so on. IPv6 will be ignored as working, but
useless thing.
I repeat my lovely phrase: If a majority (a half) of web resources will
be reachable via IPv6 when IPv4 will be finished, then MAY BE will be
the migration to IPv6. If not - then it fails.
Now I know NONE of resources reachable. Only some single experiments.
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Max Tulyev wrote:
>>> I just hear I can't use IPv6 PI network for hosting service. And I want
>> to talk about it ;)
>> OK.
>>> The main problem in IPv6 implementation in the real life is a lack of
>> resources.
>> So, just use IPv4. What is the problem?
>>> So why do you think all they change their common network to
>> absolutely useless thing for them after IPv4 will run out?
>> Hugh? With port restricted IP, IPv4 address space won't run out.
>>> Let's go forward.
>> No, you should just stay here at IPv4.
>>> Yes, IPv6 can provide hosting users a lot of good things,
>> Hugh?
>>> such as unique
>> IP for every site,
>> A+P without legacy NAT, or end to end NAT, is more than enough.
>>> FTP/SSL/SMB/torrent/personal IP-based ACLs/...
>> without extra costs and so on
>> A+P without legacy NAT, or end to end NAT, is more than enough.
>>> - this sure will stimulate them to move to
>> IPv6. Yes,
>> No, not at all.
>>> So I think we should ASAP change IPv6 PI policy to let hosting be the
>> issue for IPv6 PI assignment.
>> With port restricted IPv4, you can just ignore IPv6 and keep using
> IPv4 without losing the end to end transparency.
>> So, why do you bother with IPv6?
>> Masataka Ohta
>>>
--
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)